Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3180 of 2012 Revisionist :- Veera @ Raghuveer Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
The Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order and judgment dated 17.9.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bareilly, in Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2006, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirming the judment and order dated 27.6.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) City/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bareilly, in Criminal Case No. 76 of 2006 (State Vs. Veera @ Raghuveer) case crime no. 40 of 1997, under Section 279, 304-A I.P.C. P.S. Subhash Nagar, District- Bareilly, convicting the applicant Veera @ Raghuveer, under Section 279 I.P.C. to undergo 2 months imprisonment and under Section 304-A I.P.C to undergo 6 months imprisonment alogiwith fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that matter is old one and he aruges only with regard to the sentence. The revisionists has filed this revision against the impugned order passed by the court below in the year 2012 which has been heard today after laps of more than 8 years, hence in these circumstances, this Hon'ble Court may take lenient view and graciously modify the sentence awarded to him for the period undergone alongwith fine. Considering the law laid down by Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra (arising out of S.L.P. (CRl.) No. 6287 of 2011), this Hon'ble Court may take a view of leniency and graciously modify the sentence awarded to revisionist to the period already undergone alongwith fine. In case this Hon'ble Court finds it desirable to enhance the fine, the revisionist will not treat the same as enhancement of sentence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case alongwith case law cited above, I am of the view that sentence part of the impugned order dated 17.09.2012 is desired to be modified suitably. Sentence part of the impugned orders is modified to the extent that the revisionist is sentenced for the period already undergone with fine of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be deposited by the revisionist within 15 days from his release before the Trial Court concerned.
In case of failure to deposit the fine as directed above, revisionist will serve out one month rigorous imprisonment.
A copy of this order be communicated to the trial concerned for necessary compliance.
After compliance, a report be sent to this Court for being kept on record.
The revision is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 S.Verma